mfds_version_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool returns '판본·상태·판정근거' (version, status, judgment basis), indicating an audit-focused read operation. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it still specifies the key outputs (version, status, judgment basis). This provides sufficient context for a read-only audit tool, though it could mention any limitations or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (board and seq) adequately. The description does not add further parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's output (full version, status, judgment basis) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfds_latest_version by specifying an 'audit view' of a version group. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'Retrieve'), though the purpose is still clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and output description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.